Mihir Kumar Jha, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows: "That this writ application is being filed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs by commanding the respondents authorities to call for the records in respect of selection process of the petitioner in SOL CLK/SKT BIHAR and further direct the respondents to re -evaluate the mark sheet of the petitioner as the candidates, who have secured lesser marks than the petitioner have been declared successful and the petitioner is declared unsuccessful in the written test of SOL CLK/SKT BIHAR held on 24.11.2011 at HQ RTG ZONE DANAPUR and for any other relief/reliefs for which your Lordships may deem fit and proper." Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the very fact that the candidates having secured lesser marks than the petitioner have been selected for appointment on the post of Clerk in Indian Army in the selection process undertaken and completed by the Army authorities at Danapur, Patna leaving out the petitioner will be itself a good ground for issuance of direction for also declaring the petitioner eligible for appointment. In this regard he has cited the instance of one Gaurav Kumar, who according to the petitioner, had secured only 81 marks and yet was declared successful, whereas the petitioner securing 84 marks has been declared unsuccessful will go to show that the petitioner was subjected to hostile discrimination in the matter of selection and appointment on the post of Clerk in the Army establishment.
(3.) IN this case a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents wherein it has been explained that in the selection test for the post of Clerk the written test was to be held in two papers each of 100 marks and the candidates had to secure minimum of 32 marks in each of the paper and 80 marks in aggregate in order to qualify in the written test. It has also been explained that the petitioner had secured 64 marks in the 1st paper and only 18 marks in the 2nd paper and as such when he had failed to secure minimum qualifying marks in the 2nd paper being 32 he was declared to have failed in the examination. The respondents have also explained that the case of Gaurav Kumar was clearly distinguishable, inasmuch as he had secured 40 marks in the 1st paper and 39 marks in the 2nd paper and therefore, had secured the minimum qualifying marks 32 in both the papers as well as since all the candidates were given 2 extra marks by way of grace, Gaurav Kumar had secured in all 81 marks and thus, above 80 which had enabled him to be declared successful.;